Odd Silence re: Mungo Man
and...@my-deja.com
Science, May 21, 1999 v284 i5418 p1243
ZIMMER, CARL
Researchers claim to have found the oldest human remains ever dug up in
Australia at Lake Mungo. The age of the skeleton is estimated to be
62,000 years, which would put human beings in Australia earlier than
previously thought. This, in turn, throws doubt on the theory that all
modern humans descended from a single African population about 100,000
years ago.
....
OK, the above bombshell was published in Science over a year ago. Why
the odd silence since then?
There is no real evidence about Mungo Man posted on the internet for
public scrutiny. Nor is there any real discussion about Mungo Man, and
its implications, among evolutionists. What gives?
Oh no, don't tell me this is another scam, like the recent dinosaur-
bird fraud!
Andy
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Roger Schlafly
> Australia at Lake Mungo. The age of the skeleton is estimated to be
> 62,000 years, which would put human beings in Australia earlier than
> previously thought. This, in turn, throws doubt on the theory that all
> modern humans descended from a single African population about 100,000
> years ago.
What's the problem? Man had 38 kyrs to get down to Australia.
Maybe an early Olympics were being held there then. <g>
glenn morton
<and...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8rq083$2dv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> There is no real evidence about Mungo Man posted on the internet for
> public scrutiny. Nor is there any real discussion about Mungo Man, and
> its implications, among evolutionists. What gives?
>
> Oh no, don't tell me this is another scam, like the recent dinosaur-
> bird fraud!
If the internet is the only place you think things are debated, then you
need to widen your perspective. In the literature there has been some
vitriolic debate about the age of the Mungo man. See: Ranier Grun, et al,
“Age of the Lake Mungo 3 Skeleton, Reply to Bowler & Magee and to Gillespie
& Roberts,” Journal of Human Evolution, 38(2000):733-741 and follow the
references back. This debate is a normal part of science. Someone proposes
something, someone else criticises it. That is what science is supposed to
do. And generally they do it in the scientific literature not on the
internet.
Glenn Morton
see
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution info.
and...@my-deja.com
Right -- perhaps he was competing in a swim event at Lake Mungo!
Synchronized swimming?
From the same Science article quoted at the top of the thread:
"Many researchers maintain that all modern humans descend from a single
population of Africans dating back perhaps 100,000 years; these
founders later spread out across the Old World, replacing any humans or
hominids they encountered. One of the last places they would have
reached would be Australia, so an early date for their arrival would
mean an earlier migration than some researchers had pictured--or
perhaps an alternative scenario of modern human origins. 'If
the dates are reliable, the implications are very substantial,' says
Stanford University's Richard Klein."
Hmmmmm. "Very substantial" implications. So why the silence?
and...@my-deja.com
The internet is the best place for public scrutiny of extraordinary
claims. Why aren't the details about Mungo Man on the internet, and
why isn't there debate about it on the internet? We'll reach the truth
a thousand times faster than relying on letters-to-the-editor of a
journal with miniscule circulation.
It took 30 or so years for the truth about the Piltdown Man fraud to be
recognized. Let's use the internet to speed that up. There's no
legitimate reason to withhold evidence about extraordinary claims like
Mungo Man from the internet.
Dick C.
Because they are not done studying it yet? Science, unlike religion
or rogerandy, does not pop up with a full analysis ready for instant
review and discussion within 2 or 3 days. It takes time to properly
analyze their findings. And to determine if the initial determinations
were correct or not.
And if someone is going to publish something that will change a bit
of scientific thinking they are going to make sure that they
are correct.
--
Dick #1349
People think that libraries are safe places, but they're not,
they have ideas.
email: dic...@uswest.net
Homepage http://www.users.uswest.net/~dickcr/
Mark T. VandeWettering
>New Date for the Dawn of Dream Time.
>Science, May 21, 1999 v284 i5418 p1243
>ZIMMER, CARL
>Australia at Lake Mungo. The age of the skeleton is estimated to be
>62,000 years, which would put human beings in Australia earlier than
>previously thought. This, in turn, throws doubt on the theory that all
>modern humans descended from a single African population about 100,000
>years ago.
>
>OK, the above bombshell was published in Science over a year ago. Why
>the odd silence since then?
Its a conspiracy. Obviously.
>There is no real evidence about Mungo Man posted on the internet for
>public scrutiny. Nor is there any real discussion about Mungo Man, and
>its implications, among evolutionists. What gives?
Are you aware how long it takes to do real science? Unlike
creationists like Johnson and Behe, real scientists actually have
ANALYZE EVIDENCE to reach conclusions. That takes time.
>Oh no, don't tell me this is another scam, like the recent dinosaur-
>bird fraud!
Yeah, I am sure that's it.
>Andy
Mark
--
Mark VandeWettering's .signature contains six As, two Cs, three
Ds, twenty four Es, eight Fs, seven Gs, six Hs, fifteen Is, two
Ks, two Ms, sixteen Ns, nine Os, eight Rs, twenty eight Ss, twenty
one Ts, five Us, five Vs, eight Ws, four Xs, and four Ys.
Mark T. VandeWettering
>The internet is the best place for public scrutiny of extraordinary
>claims. Why aren't the details about Mungo Man on the internet, and
>why isn't there debate about it on the internet? We'll reach the truth
>a thousand times faster than relying on letters-to-the-editor of a
>journal with miniscule circulation.
I must admit Andy, you are presenting me with a lot of chuckles. I tell
you what, if you want to debate the age of Mungo Man, feel free to create
alt.debate.mungo.man and start. I'm sure you'll reach the truth far sooner
than the scientists who actually have the skeletons and training to interpret
them will.
>It took 30 or so years for the truth about the Piltdown Man fraud to be
>recognized.
Actually, skepticism about Piltdown was almost immediate. It took years
for the fraud to finally be acknowledged.
>Let's use the internet to speed that up. There's no
>legitimate reason to withhold evidence about extraordinary claims like
>Mungo Man from the internet.
Who would have thought that talk.origins could be so funny?
Mark
>Andy
WickedDyno
> New Date for the Dawn of Dream Time.
> Science, May 21, 1999 v284 i5418 p1243
> ZIMMER, CARL
> Researchers claim to have found the oldest human remains ever dug up in
> Australia at Lake Mungo. The age of the skeleton is estimated to be
> 62,000 years, which would put human beings in Australia earlier than
> previously thought. This, in turn, throws doubt on the theory that all
> modern humans descended from a single African population about 100,000
> years ago.
> ....
>
> OK, the above bombshell was published in Science over a year ago. Why
> the odd silence since then?
>
> There is no real evidence about Mungo Man posted on the internet for
> public scrutiny. Nor is there any real discussion about Mungo Man, and
> its implications, among evolutionists. What gives?
>
> Oh no, don't tell me this is another scam, like the recent dinosaur-
> bird fraud!
If it turns out to be a scam, then it's a scam. If not, it just means
our ancestors developed speed-walking earlier than we thought. ;)
"Speeeeeed Walker!!!"
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
WickedDyno
> In article <8rq7k3$bsh$1...@uranium.btinternet.com>,
> "glenn morton" <glenn....@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > <and...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8rq083
> > $2dv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > There is no real evidence about Mungo Man posted on the internet
> > > for public scrutiny. Nor is there any real discussion about
> > > Mungo Man, and its implications, among evolutionists. What
> > > gives?
> > >
> > > Oh no, don't tell me this is another scam, like the recent
> > > dinosaur- bird fraud!
> >
> > If the internet is the only place you think things are debated,
> > then you need to widen your perspective. In the literature there
> > has been some vitriolic debate about the age of the Mungo man.
> > See: Ranier Grun, et al, “Age of the Lake Mungo 3 Skeleton, Reply
> > to Bowler & Magee and to Gillespie & Roberts,” Journal of Human
> > Evolution, 38(2000):733-741 and follow the references back. This
> > debate is a normal part of science. Someone proposes something,
> > someone else criticises it. That is what science is supposed to do.
> > And generally they do it in the scientific literature not on the
> > internet.
>
> The internet is the best place for public scrutiny of extraordinary
> claims.
Actually, it's the best place for nuts like you to annoy working
scientists.
> Why aren't the details about Mungo Man on the internet, and
> why isn't there debate about it on the internet?
To keep the net kooks out of proper scientific work.
> We'll reach the
> truth a thousand times faster than relying on letters-to-the-editor
> of a journal with miniscule circulation.
You'll also generate so much unadulterated crap that no one will be able
to find the scarce nuggets of worthy discussion
Also, do you think that mere discussion is capable of reaching truth?
Andy, you are so droll. Science is not about talking -- it's about
doing. It's about getting your hands dirty and looking at the bones and
the rock around them.
> It took 30 or so years for the truth about the Piltdown Man fraud to
> be recognized. Let's use the internet to speed that up. There's no
> legitimate reason to withhold evidence about extraordinary claims
> like Mungo Man from the internet.
Mungo is hardly extraordinary. And if it is a fraud, it will be found
out very soon. Just look at the few hihg-profile recent frauds and
honest mistakes made -- the feathered theropod in china, Sinoapteryx I
think the name was, and the recent mistake with the dinosaur's tail (NOT
A FRAUD!) -- both were found out very quickly.
Matt Silberstein
and...@my-deja.com:
>New Date for the Dawn of Dream Time.
>Science, May 21, 1999 v284 i5418 p1243
>ZIMMER, CARL
>Researchers claim to have found the oldest human remains ever dug up in
>Australia at Lake Mungo. The age of the skeleton is estimated to be
>62,000 years, which would put human beings in Australia earlier than
>previously thought. This, in turn, throws doubt on the theory that all
>modern humans descended from a single African population about 100,000
>years ago.
>....
>
>OK, the above bombshell was published in Science over a year ago. Why
>the odd silence since then?
>
>There is no real evidence about Mungo Man posted on the internet for
>public scrutiny. Nor is there any real discussion about Mungo Man, and
>its implications, among evolutionists. What gives?
>
>Oh no, don't tell me this is another scam, like the recent dinosaur-
>bird fraud!
My gosh, they did not put this stuff on the Internet where Andy could
find it right away, it must be a scam then.
--
Matt Silberstein
Let me ride on the wall of death one more time
You can waste your chances on the other rides
This is the nearest to being alive
Let me take my chances on the wall of death
R.T.
Roger Schlafly
> If it turns out to be a scam, then it's a scam. If not, it just means
> our ancestors developed speed-walking earlier than we thought. ;)
And boats and language and a few other things. Why would they be
going to Australia anyway, to set up a penal colony there? <g>
and...@my-deja.com
4C71DB.145...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
WickedDyno <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.invalid> wrote:
> Mungo is hardly extraordinary. And if it is a fraud, it will be
found
> out very soon. Just look at the few hihg-profile recent frauds and
> honest mistakes made -- the feathered theropod in china, Sinoapteryx
I
> think the name was, and the recent mistake with the dinosaur's tail
(NOT
> A FRAUD!) -- both were found out very quickly.
According to Mark T. VandeWettering, people were skeptical of Piltdown
Man almost immediately. Looks like the same is true for Mungo Man.
Trouble is, it took 30 or so years for the fraud of the Piltdown Man to
be acknowledged. Will it take that long for Mungo Man too?
As to the dinosaur-bird fraud, I suggest you read National Geographic's
account (in its most recent issue) of what happened. Early on, the
scientists X-rayed the fossil and found it actually consisted of 88
pieces, some of which were not matched to each other and were pasted
over. However, they proceeded with their evolutionary claims, which
were subsequently published in National Geographic. The claims were
only retracted when a Chinese scholar insisted and proved that the
fossil was a fake.
This is science???
Boikat
>
> New Date for the Dawn of Dream Time.
> Science, May 21, 1999 v284 i5418 p1243
> ZIMMER, CARL
> Researchers claim to have found the oldest human remains ever dug up in
> Australia at Lake Mungo. The age of the skeleton is estimated to be
> 62,000 years, which would put human beings in Australia earlier than
> previously thought. This, in turn, throws doubt on the theory that all
> modern humans descended from a single African population about 100,000
> years ago.
> ....
>
> OK, the above bombshell was published in Science over a year ago. Why
> the odd silence since then?
What "bombshell?
>
> There is no real evidence about Mungo Man posted on the internet for
> public scrutiny. Nor is there any real discussion about Mungo Man, and
> its implications, among evolutionists. What gives?
What "gives" is probably your interpretation of
the findings being a "bombshell".
>
> Oh no, don't tell me this is another scam, like the recent dinosaur-
> bird fraud!
Or maybe that you are trying to make another
mountain out of another mole hill?
Or is it maybe that you are laboring under the
false impression that theories should not be
changed or discarded when new evidence comes to
light? In the case of Mungo Man, new dating of the
sediment and the remains show that it was older
than originally thought, and implies that at least
some humans migrated out of Africa earlier then
thought So?
Boikat
Roger Schlafly
> Trouble is, it took 30 or so years for the fraud of the Piltdown Man to
> be acknowledged. Will it take that long for Mungo Man too?
Over 40 yrs, according to:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_piltdown.html
(1908 until 1953)
WickedDyno
> In article <amg39.REMOVETHIS-
> 4C71DB.145...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
> WickedDyno <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.invalid> wrote:
> > Mungo is hardly extraordinary. And if it is a fraud, it will be
> found
> > out very soon. Just look at the few hihg-profile recent frauds and
> > honest mistakes made -- the feathered theropod in china, Sinoapteryx
> I
> > think the name was, and the recent mistake with the dinosaur's tail
> (NOT
> > A FRAUD!) -- both were found out very quickly.
>
> According to Mark T. VandeWettering, people were skeptical of Piltdown
> Man almost immediately. Looks like the same is true for Mungo Man.
>
> Trouble is, it took 30 or so years for the fraud of the Piltdown Man to
> be acknowledged. Will it take that long for Mungo Man too?
You are erroneously presupposing that Mungo is a fraud. There is no
reason to believe he is at present. Of course, you silly creationists
love to believe things with no evidence for them, so that's to be
expected.
> As to the dinosaur-bird fraud, I suggest you read National Geographic's
> account (in its most recent issue) of what happened. Early on, the
> scientists X-rayed the fossil and found it actually consisted of 88
> pieces, some of which were not matched to each other and were pasted
> over. However, they proceeded with their evolutionary claims, which
> were subsequently published in National Geographic. The claims were
> only retracted when a Chinese scholar insisted and proved that the
> fossil was a fake.
>
> This is science???
That it was found out to be a fraud is science. You creationists are
STILL going on about the Paluxy River man tracks when they've been
disproven for generations.
Richard Harter
>In article <amg39.REMOVETHIS-
>4C71DB.145...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
> WickedDyno <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.invalid> wrote:
>> Mungo is hardly extraordinary. And if it is a fraud, it will be
>found
>> out very soon. Just look at the few hihg-profile recent frauds and
>> honest mistakes made -- the feathered theropod in china, Sinoapteryx
>I
>> think the name was, and the recent mistake with the dinosaur's tail
>(NOT
>> A FRAUD!) -- both were found out very quickly.
>
>According to Mark T. VandeWettering, people were skeptical of Piltdown
>Man almost immediately. Looks like the same is true for Mungo Man.
>
>Trouble is, it took 30 or so years for the fraud of the Piltdown Man to
>be acknowledged. Will it take that long for Mungo Man too?
Just as a note there are two different issues in the Piltdown Man
hoax. They are: (a) Was there significant perception that hoax was a
fraud before its final exposure and (b) Was the Piltdown find broadly
accepted as being a hominid fossil.
As to (a) they were some speculation at the time (1912-1913) that the
find was a fraud but it was quite minor. The phrasing "it took 30 or
so years for the fraud of the Piltdown Man to be acknowled" is quite
misleading; it was *acknowledged* to be a fraud immediately after it
was *discovered* to be a fraud.
As to (b) there was always quite a bit of controversy as to whether
the Piltdown finds (almost universally assumed to be legitimate
fossils) were from a hominid rather being a mixture of unrelated
bones.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net
http://www.tiac.net/users/cri
"It was half way to Rivendell when the drugs began to take hold"
Hunter S Tolkien "Fear and Loathing in Barad Dur" - Iain Bowen
wf...@ptd.net
>New Date for the Dawn of Dream Time.
>Science, May 21, 1999 v284 i5418 p1243
>ZIMMER, CARL
>Researchers claim to have found the oldest human remains ever dug up in
>Australia at Lake Mungo. The age of the skeleton is estimated to be
>62,000 years, which would put human beings in Australia earlier than
>previously thought. This, in turn, throws doubt on the theory that all
>modern humans descended from a single African population about 100,000
>years ago.
>....
>
>OK, the above bombshell was published in Science over a year ago. Why
>the odd silence since then?
ooohhh... a conspiracy mebbe?? you know...scientists just LOVE to
announce some discovery then hush it up...
>
raven1
>As to the dinosaur-bird fraud, I suggest you read National Geographic's
>account (in its most recent issue) of what happened. Early on, the
>scientists X-rayed the fossil and found it actually consisted of 88
>pieces, some of which were not matched to each other and were pasted
>over. However, they proceeded with their evolutionary claims, which
>were subsequently published in National Geographic. The claims were
>only retracted when a Chinese scholar insisted and proved that the
>fossil was a fake.
>
>This is science???
National Geographic is hardly a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
Rebecca Ore
>
> The internet is the best place for public scrutiny of extraordinary
> claims. Why aren't the details about Mungo Man on the internet, and
> why isn't there debate about it on the internet? We'll reach the truth
> a thousand times faster than relying on letters-to-the-editor of a
> journal with miniscule circulation.
Um, because they know how to evaluate the data?
The internet is just a faster way of back fence gossiping, which isn't
to invalidate back fence gossiping or yakking on the phone or hanging
in a bar. It's quite good for somethings, but the numbers of people
actually debating issues on line is relatively small, smaller than the
numbers reading _Science_ or _Nature_. I see some people here I
recognize from other groups. The active posters in English world wide
in all groups probably don't number more than 20K, if that. I've seen
estimates that the numbers are even as low as only 500 people active
continuously on line year in, year out.
>
> It took 30 or so years for the truth about the Piltdown Man fraud to be
> recognized. Let's use the internet to speed that up. There's no
> legitimate reason to withhold evidence about extraordinary claims like
> Mungo Man from the internet.
>
I seriously doubt anyone is not talking about those things -- I
believe people gave you some references.
If I remember correctly, Australia was always easier to get to from
Asia than were the Americas due to winter conditions at the only point
of connection between Asia and NA. Given that Native American
populations spread from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego in circa 4K years
or so, with minimal differences in technology from the Australians
other than texiles and fur tanning, I think even if the date holds, it
doesn't invalidate the mitochondrial DNA work that points to a common
mother 100K years back.
--
Rebecca Ore
http://www.ogoense.net
Roger Schlafly
> As to (a) they were some speculation at the time (1912-1913) that the
> find was a fraud but it was quite minor. The phrasing "it took 30 or
> so years for the fraud of the Piltdown Man to be acknowled" is quite
> misleading; it was *acknowledged* to be a fraud immediately after it
> was *discovered* to be a fraud.
Now there is some circular reasoning. He knows what he knows.
Boikat
Does it hurt your head to be so obtuse?
Boikat
Richard Harter
<roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>Richard Harter wrote:
>> As to (a) they were some speculation at the time (1912-1913) that the
>> find was a fraud but it was quite minor. The phrasing "it took 30 or
>> so years for the fraud of the Piltdown Man to be acknowled" is quite
>> misleading; it was *acknowledged* to be a fraud immediately after it
>> was *discovered* to be a fraud.
>
>Now there is some circular reasoning. He knows what he knows.
Er, do you really think that there is some connection between what I
wrote and your comment? Why do you think that it makes sense? And
who is the mysterious "he" in your second sentence?
In any event Weiner, Le Gros Clark, and Oakley discovered that it was
a hoax in 1953. It was widely and publicly acknowledged to be a hoax
during the days immediately following. The phrasing "it took 30 years
for it to be acknowledged" implies that it was known to be a hoax for
30 years.
Matt Silberstein
and...@my-deja.com:
>In article <amg39.REMOVETHIS-
>4C71DB.145...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
> WickedDyno <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.invalid> wrote:
>> Mungo is hardly extraordinary. And if it is a fraud, it will be
>found
>> out very soon. Just look at the few hihg-profile recent frauds and
>> honest mistakes made -- the feathered theropod in china, Sinoapteryx
>I
>> think the name was, and the recent mistake with the dinosaur's tail
>(NOT
>> A FRAUD!) -- both were found out very quickly.
>
>According to Mark T. VandeWettering, people were skeptical of Piltdown
>Man almost immediately. Looks like the same is true for Mungo Man.
>
>Trouble is, it took 30 or so years for the fraud of the Piltdown Man to
>be acknowledged. Will it take that long for Mungo Man too?
>
>As to the dinosaur-bird fraud, I suggest you read National Geographic's
>account (in its most recent issue) of what happened. Early on, the
>scientists X-rayed the fossil and found it actually consisted of 88
>pieces, some of which were not matched to each other and were pasted
>over. However, they proceeded with their evolutionary claims, which
>were subsequently published in National Geographic. The claims were
>only retracted when a Chinese scholar insisted and proved that the
>fossil was a fake.
>
>This is science???
No, Andy, it is *not* science. National Geographic is *not* a
peer-reviewed scientific journal. It is a popular press magazine. Now
do you think they should have repressed the work? Are you advocating
that they censor a possible finding until they can determine if it was
correct? Sounds like you need to re-think this. (Yes, we all have the
same punch line.)
sc...@home.com
>On 8 Oct 2000 20:06:03 -0400, Roger Schlafly
><roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>
>>Richard Harter wrote:
>>> As to (a) they were some speculation at the time (1912-1913) that the
>>> find was a fraud but it was quite minor. The phrasing "it took 30 or
>>> so years for the fraud of the Piltdown Man to be acknowled" is quite
>>> misleading; it was *acknowledged* to be a fraud immediately after it
>>> was *discovered* to be a fraud.
>>
>>Now there is some circular reasoning. He knows what he knows.
>
>Er, do you really think that there is some connection between what I
>wrote and your comment? Why do you think that it makes sense? And
>who is the mysterious "he" in your second sentence?
>
>In any event Weiner, Le Gros Clark, and Oakley discovered that it was
>a hoax in 1953. It was widely and publicly acknowledged to be a hoax
>during the days immediately following. The phrasing "it took 30 years
>for it to be acknowledged" implies that it was known to be a hoax for
>30 years.
>
I though you made a very valid point.
Scott
Richard Harter
Thank you.
Dick C.
>
>
>According to Mark T. VandeWettering, people were skeptical of Piltdown
>Man almost immediately. Looks like the same is true for Mungo Man.
Actually no. A few things were learned from Piltdown. Among them were
not to trust fossils that are locked away so that scientists cannot
examine them. Nothing about Mungo will be accepted if it isn't put
out for other scientists to examine. And in science all new ideas
are met with skepticism, this is part of how science works.
>
>Trouble is, it took 30 or so years for the fraud of the Piltdown Man to
>be acknowledged. Will it take that long for Mungo Man too?
Probably not, since this one is not being locked in a safe away
from anyone who wants to investigate.
>
>As to the dinosaur-bird fraud, I suggest you read National Geographic's
>account (in its most recent issue) of what happened. Early on, the
>scientists X-rayed the fossil and found it actually consisted of 88
>pieces, some of which were not matched to each other and were pasted
>over. However, they proceeded with their evolutionary claims, which
>were subsequently published in National Geographic. The claims were
>only retracted when a Chinese scholar insisted and proved that the
>fossil was a fake.
>
>This is science???
So, tell me, how was it discovered that the dinosaur consisted of
2 different fossils? Science, wasn't it? That is what happens when
scientists do their jobs. One finds something and reports it, others
examine it and they all together determine what it is. I realize you
want to use this in an attempt to belittle science, but it really shows
how science works to weed out fraud and errors.
And of course, you have not mentioned that National Geographic
acknowledged and apologized for the error.
David Iain Greig
>In talk.origins I read <8rq083$2dv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> from
>and...@my-deja.com:
>
>>Science, May 21, 1999 v284 i5418 p1243
>>ZIMMER, CARL
>>Researchers claim to have found the oldest human remains ever dug up in
>>Australia at Lake Mungo. The age of the skeleton is estimated to be
>>62,000 years, which would put human beings in Australia earlier than
>>previously thought. This, in turn, throws doubt on the theory that all
>>modern humans descended from a single African population about 100,000
>>years ago.
>>....
>>
>>OK, the above bombshell was published in Science over a year ago. Why
>>the odd silence since then?
>>
>>public scrutiny. Nor is there any real discussion about Mungo Man, and
>>its implications, among evolutionists. What gives?
>>
>>bird fraud!
>
>find it right away, it must be a scam then.
Well, they did, but MCI suppressed it. Really!
--D.
Mark Isaak
>Man almost immediately. Looks like the same is true for Mungo Man.
The same is also true of you.
>Trouble is, it took 30 or so years for the fraud of the Piltdown Man to
>be acknowledged. Will it take that long for Mungo Man too?
And when will you be acknowledged a fraud?
--
Mark Isaak atta @ best.com http://www.best.com/~atta
"The commonest fallacy is to suppose that since the state of doubt
is accompanied by a feeling of uncertainty, knowledge arises when
this feeling gives way to one of assurance." - John Dewey
and...@my-deja.com
c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
> On 8 Oct 2000 22:36:52 -0400, sc...@home.com wrote:
> >In <39e10df7....@news.SullyButtes.net>, c...@tiac.net (Richard
Harter) writes:
> >>On 8 Oct 2000 20:06:03 -0400, Roger Schlafly
> >><roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Richard Harter wrote:
> >>>> As to (a) they were some speculation at the time (1912-1913)
that the
30 or
> >>>> so years for the fraud of the Piltdown Man to be acknowled" is
quite
> >>>> misleading; it was *acknowledged* to be a fraud immediately
after it
> >>>> was *discovered* to be a fraud.
> >>>
> >>>Now there is some circular reasoning. He knows what he knows.
> >>
> >>Er, do you really think that there is some connection between what I
> >>wrote and your comment? Why do you think that it makes sense? And
> >>who is the mysterious "he" in your second sentence?
> >>
> >>In any event Weiner, Le Gros Clark, and Oakley discovered that it
was
> >>a hoax in 1953. It was widely and publicly acknowledged to be a
hoax
> >>during the days immediately following. The phrasing "it took 30
years
> >>for it to be acknowledged" implies that it was known to be a hoax
for
> >>30 years.
> >>
> >Indeed.
> >
> >I though you made a very valid point.
>
> Thank you.
It doesn't matter whether one claims that (1) scientists knew the
Piltdown Man was fake immediately circa 1912 (as one poster asserts)
but didn't tell us until 1953, or (2) scientists thought the Piltdown
Man was legitimate until 1953 and then told us as soon as they found
out it was a fraud. Either way, it demonstrates that the scientific
method was badly flawed, resulting in deception of the public for 40
years. No other branch of science has this deplorable record. Quite
simply, proper scientific method does not permit such deception.
With respect to Mungo Man, you can see that at least one poster takes
a "So what?" view towards fraud that he admits is possible, while
another poster seems to oppose allowing the public to scrutinize the
evidence over the internet. Real scientists welcome public scrutiny,
and deplore any possibility of fraud.
In the U.S., the recent Shelby Amendment requires taxpayer-funded
research data to be made available on demand to the public. This would
minimize fraud in evolution if the public started invoking it.
Boikat
It doesn't matter that andy misrepresented what
was said, that *some* scientists *suspected* that
piltdown was a hoax, yet were denied access to the
fossils to examine the evidence
> or (2) scientists thought the Piltdown
> Man was legitimate until 1953 and then told us as soon as they found
> out it was a fraud.
Some scientists did believe piltdown was genuine,
and did finally have to admit it (and they did)
when it was clearly demonstrated to be fake.
> Either way, it demonstrates that the scientific
> method was badly flawed,
No, it showed that if an artifact is in doubt,
it's a good idea to allow more than just the
people making a claim based on that artifact.
> resulting in deception of the public for 40
> years.
The only "deception" was on the part of the
hoaxer.
> No other branch of science has this deplorable record.
Except for creationism. And they top scientific
"fraud", hand down.
> Quite
> simply, proper scientific method does not permit such deception.
And it didn't, once better dating techniques were
used, and the materials were allowed to be
examined.
>
> With respect to Mungo Man, you can see that at least one poster takes
> a "So what?" view towards fraud that he admits is possible,
What fraud?
> while
> another poster seems to oppose allowing the public to scrutinize the
> evidence over the internet.
You misrepresent what was said.
> Real scientists welcome public scrutiny,
> and deplore any possibility of fraud.
Yes, however, they are not going to hand over the
evidence to morons before they've completed their
study first.
>
> In the U.S., the recent Shelby Amendment requires taxpayer-funded
> research data to be made available on demand to the public.
Who is studying Mungo man? Isn't Mungo Man an
Australian discovery? What does the Shelby
Amendment have to do with Australians?
> This would
> minimize fraud in evolution
What fraud?
> if the public started invoking it.
However, that does not mean that every Tom Dick or
Harry has access to the materials, or can make
claims based on ignorance before the study is
complete, now does it? If scientists are still
investigating something, what do you expect them
to say anyway
How may dead horses are you going to be liquefied
before you are done clubbing it with pointless
blather?
Boikat
WickedDyno
> but didn't tell us until 1953, or (2) scientists thought the Piltdown
> Man was legitimate until 1953 and then told us as soon as they found
> out it was a fraud.
False dicotomy. Typical.
<snip more nonsense>
Bonz
message <8rqn9c$j31$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> :
>
>According to Mark T. VandeWettering, people were skeptical of Piltdown
>Man almost immediately. Looks like the same is true for Mungo Man.
>
>Trouble is, it took 30 or so years for the fraud of the Piltdown Man to
>be acknowledged. Will it take that long for Mungo Man too?
>
>As to the dinosaur-bird fraud, I suggest you read National Geographic's
>account (in its most recent issue) of what happened. Early on, the
>scientists X-rayed the fossil and found it actually consisted of 88
>pieces, some of which were not matched to each other and were pasted
>over. However, they proceeded with their evolutionary claims, which
>were subsequently published in National Geographic.
And not in a science journal. Imagine that.
> The claims were
>only retracted when a Chinese scholar insisted and proved that the
>fossil was a fake.
>
>This is science???
No, it is not. Their papers were REJECTED by the journals.
Why do you insist on calling it science?
PUBLISHING PICTURES IN A TRADE MAGAZINE IS NOT SCIENCE.
い
Bonz alt.atheism #1497
い
Rover
<roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
That would more likely be rafts. And since these were behaviorally
modern humans, it's no surprise they possessed language. Do you know
that humans possess an innate faculty for language acquisition?
WickedDyno
<n...@sonic.net> wrote:
Australia was connected to Asia via a land bridge at numerous times.
Boats may have been unnecessary.
Rover
Doesn't the mitochondrial data indicate a common mother as much as
200k years ago? There isn't any threat to current ideas about the out
of Africa migration, but more questions are raised about the types of
technologies possessed 100k or more years ago. Apparently maritime
cultures are more ancient than previously thought. The settling of the
Americas seems to have involved migration down the coast. This may
have been a continuation of explorations begun much earlier.
Roger Schlafly
> > That would more likely be rafts. And since these were behaviorally
> > modern humans, it's no surprise they possessed language. Do you know
> > that humans possess an innate faculty for language acquisition?
That is a matter of some debate.
> Australia was connected to Asia via a land bridge at numerous times.
> Boats may have been unnecessary.
In the last 100 kyrs? I doubt it.
thewilkins
<amg39.REMOVETHIS-0B...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
WickedDyno <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.invalid> wrote:
> In article <ov55us0dn302upn1h...@4ax.com>, Rover
> <n...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> > On 8 Oct 2000 15:26:14 -0400, Roger Schlafly
> > <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> >
> > >WickedDyno wrote:
> > >> If it turns out to be a scam, then it's a scam. If not, it just
> > >> means
> > >> our ancestors developed speed-walking earlier than we thought. ;)
> > >
> > >And boats and language and a few other things. Why would they be
> > >going to Australia anyway, to set up a penal colony there? <g>
> >
> > That would more likely be rafts. And since these were behaviorally
> > modern humans, it's no surprise they possessed language. Do you know
> > that humans possess an innate faculty for language acquisition?
> >
>
> Australia was connected to Asia via a land bridge at numerous times.
> Boats may have been unnecessary.
At all times there was a deep trench at the Wallace line, and in human
times the Timor Sea though narrowed was still there. At best it would
have been around a 60km sea trip. Australia was, however, connected to
Papua New Guinea by a land bridge, and the continental shelf was dry
land, and being the most likely migration route, evidence of migration
is sparse because it's under water and coral.
Stew Dean
pool:
>In article <39e13e0e....@news.SullyButtes.net>,
> c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>> On 8 Oct 2000 22:36:52 -0400, sc...@home.com wrote:
>It doesn't matter whether one claims that (1) scientists knew the
>Piltdown Man was fake immediately circa 1912 (as one poster asserts)
>but didn't tell us until 1953, or (2) scientists thought the Piltdown
>Man was legitimate until 1953 and then told us as soon as they found
>out it was a fraud. Either way, it demonstrates that the scientific
>method was badly flawed, resulting in deception of the public for 40
>years. No other branch of science has this deplorable record. Quite
>simply, proper scientific method does not permit such deception.
>
The most important thing was it was uncovered. The scientific method
isnt magic - it is used by people and people do the things people do.
Over time the scientific method does do a great job of weening out
what is correct and not correct.
>With respect to Mungo Man, you can see that at least one poster takes
>a "So what?" view towards fraud that he admits is possible, while
>another poster seems to oppose allowing the public to scrutinize the
>evidence over the internet. Real scientists welcome public scrutiny,
>and deplore any possibility of fraud.
>
It's pretty hard to scutinize evidence over the internet. It can lead
to a lot of 'looks like' cases. For example if you saw a picture of
the 'face on mars' on the internet you'd say it looked like a face on
mars. From another angle it certainly doesnt.
>In the U.S., the recent Shelby Amendment requires taxpayer-funded
>research data to be made available on demand to the public. This would
>minimize fraud in evolution if the public started invoking it.
>
You paint this odd us and them picture. Scientists are part of the
public. Peer review is very important in science.
Stewart Dean - ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
alife guide - http://www.webslave.dircon.co.uk/alife
Louann Miller
>It doesn't matter whether one claims that (1) scientists knew the
>Piltdown Man was fake immediately circa 1912 (as one poster asserts)
>but didn't tell us until 1953, or (2) scientists thought the Piltdown
>Man was legitimate until 1953 and then told us as soon as they found
>out it was a fraud. Either way, it demonstrates that the scientific
>method was badly flawed, resulting in deception of the public for 40
>years. No other branch of science has this deplorable record.
Who was the first man on the moon in your timeline? All fields of
science make mistakes; the test is how they correct them. (All
religions also make mistakes, but correction is rare.)
Louann
Rover
<roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>WickedDyno wrote:
>> > That would more likely be rafts. And since these were behaviorally
>> > modern humans, it's no surprise they possessed language. Do you know
>> > that humans possess an innate faculty for language acquisition?
>
>That is a matter of some debate.
Who is debating? I thought the behaviorists had pretty much given up
the fight. Associationist theories can't account for children's
ability to abstract general rules from insufficient data, the
universal phases of language acquisition, or the formation of creoles
and dialects. If you know of an alternative theory that accounts
parsimoniously for such phenomena, I would be interested in hearing of
it.
>
>> Australia was connected to Asia via a land bridge at numerous times.
>> Boats may have been unnecessary.
>
>In the last 100 kyrs? I doubt it.
Got any data on this?
Rover
<amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.invalid> wrote:
>In article <ov55us0dn302upn1h...@4ax.com>, Rover
><n...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> On 8 Oct 2000 15:26:14 -0400, Roger Schlafly
>> <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>>
>> >WickedDyno wrote:
>> >> If it turns out to be a scam, then it's a scam. If not, it just means
>> >> our ancestors developed speed-walking earlier than we thought. ;)
>> >
>> >And boats and language and a few other things. Why would they be
>> >going to Australia anyway, to set up a penal colony there? <g>
>>
>> That would more likely be rafts. And since these were behaviorally
>> modern humans, it's no surprise they possessed language. Do you know
>> that humans possess an innate faculty for language acquisition?
>>
>
>Australia was connected to Asia via a land bridge at numerous times.
>Boats may have been unnecessary.
I just read John Wilkin's post where he notes that Australia was
connected by a land bridge to the Solomon Islands. Even if there was
no uninterrupted bridge from the mainland, perhaps there was a chain
of connecting islands with those nearer the mainland being visited
first and possibly settled.
Craig Patrick Walsh
: In article <39e13e0e....@news.SullyButtes.net>,
: c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
: > On 8 Oct 2000 22:36:52 -0400, sc...@home.com wrote:
: > >In <39e10df7....@news.SullyButtes.net>, c...@tiac.net (Richard
: Harter) writes:
: > >>On 8 Oct 2000 20:06:03 -0400, Roger Schlafly
: > >><roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
: > >>
: > >>>Richard Harter wrote:
: > >>>> As to (a) they were some speculation at the time (1912-1913)
: that the
: 30 or
: > >>>> so years for the fraud of the Piltdown Man to be acknowled" is
: quite
: > >>>> misleading; it was *acknowledged* to be a fraud immediately
: after it
: > >>>> was *discovered* to be a fraud.
: > >>>
: > >>>Now there is some circular reasoning. He knows what he knows.
: > >>
: > >>Er, do you really think that there is some connection between what I
: > >>wrote and your comment? Why do you think that it makes sense? And
: > >>who is the mysterious "he" in your second sentence?
: > >>
: > >>In any event Weiner, Le Gros Clark, and Oakley discovered that it
: was
: > >>a hoax in 1953. It was widely and publicly acknowledged to be a
: hoax
: > >>during the days immediately following. The phrasing "it took 30
: years
: > >>for it to be acknowledged" implies that it was known to be a hoax
: for
: > >>30 years.
: > >>
: > >Indeed.
: > >
: > >I though you made a very valid point.
: >
: > Thank you.
: It doesn't matter whether one claims that (1) scientists knew the
: Piltdown Man was fake immediately circa 1912 (as one poster asserts)
: but didn't tell us until 1953, or (2) scientists thought the Piltdown
: Man was legitimate until 1953 and then told us as soon as they found
: out it was a fraud. Either way, it demonstrates that the scientific
: method was badly flawed, resulting in deception of the public for 40
: years. No other branch of science has this deplorable record. Quite
: simply, proper scientific method does not permit such deception.
: With respect to Mungo Man, you can see that at least one poster takes
: a "So what?" view towards fraud that he admits is possible, while
: another poster seems to oppose allowing the public to scrutinize the
: evidence over the internet. Real scientists welcome public scrutiny,
: and deplore any possibility of fraud.
: In the U.S., the recent Shelby Amendment requires taxpayer-funded
: research data to be made available on demand to the public. This would
: minimize fraud in evolution if the public started invoking it.
You haven't presented a shred a evidence to suggest that "Mungo Man" is a
fraud. It's time for you to put up or shut up: What is your evidence for
thinking that either
1) Mungo Man is a fake, or
2) Mungo Man is real but was delibrately suppressed or distorted in some
way?
Keep in mind that fraud involves lying and deception. If you find new data
that challenges a previous theory, that's not fraud, it's just life.
--
Craig
Roger Schlafly
> >Piltdown Man was fake immediately circa 1912 (as one poster asserts)
> >but didn't tell us until 1953, or (2) scientists thought the Piltdown
> >Man was legitimate until 1953 and then told us as soon as they found
> >out it was a fraud. Either way, it demonstrates that the scientific
> >method was badly flawed, resulting in deception of the public for 40
> >years. No other branch of science has this deplorable record.
>
> science make mistakes; the test is how they correct them. (All
> religions also make mistakes, but correction is rare.)
I don't think anyone made 40-yr mistakes about the first man
on the moon.
Yes, how fields correct mistakes is a good test. Do you want to give
examples of other sciences or even (mainstream) religions making
a blooper like Piltdown Man?
Roger Schlafly
> Who is debating? I thought the behaviorists had pretty much given up
> the fight. Associationist theories can't account for children's
> ability to abstract general rules from insufficient data, the
> universal phases of language acquisition, or the formation of creoles
> and dialects. If you know of an alternative theory that accounts
> parsimoniously for such phenomena, I would be interested in hearing of
> it.
Here are a couple of pages discussing the debate:
http://www.duke.edu/~pk10/language/neuro.htm
http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Thinking.Psychologically96/0097.html
Henry Barwood
Roger Schlafly wrote:
> Yes, how fields correct mistakes is a good test. Do you want to give
> examples of other sciences or even (mainstream) religions making
> a blooper like Piltdown Man?
Moses?
Barwood
Mark T. VandeWettering
>It doesn't matter whether one claims that (1) scientists knew the
>Piltdown Man was fake immediately circa 1912 (as one poster asserts)
>but didn't tell us until 1953, or (2) scientists thought the Piltdown
>Man was legitimate until 1953 and then told us as soon as they found
>out it was a fraud. Either way, it demonstrates that the scientific
>method was badly flawed, resulting in deception of the public for 40
>years. No other branch of science has this deplorable record. Quite
>simply, proper scientific method does not permit such deception.
*sigh*
Science is still done by human beings. One of the reasons science
works so well is that ultimately it doesn't rely on human nature to
figure things out. Sure, one scientist could lie and falsify results.
But the next scientist to come along says "hey, that's not what I get"
and the fraud is exposed. The reliance on evidence and reasoning helps
keep science grounded.
Yes, mistakes are made. Cold fusion is an illustration of how well
scientists can fool themselves (particularly in fields where they
normally don't stray, there is a lesson there for creationists).
Piltdown was a fraud, which shows that science are not immune to
political or personal motivations. Golly, that's not exactly a
stretch. Such episodes are regrettable and deplorable abuses of
science. But science more than any other field of human endeavor
has defined ways of uncovering such deceptions, of separating the
wheat from the chaff, of good ideas from bad.
>With respect to Mungo Man, you can see that at least one poster takes
>a "So what?" view towards fraud that he admits is possible, while
>another poster seems to oppose allowing the public to scrutinize the
>evidence over the internet. Real scientists welcome public scrutiny,
>and deplore any possibility of fraud.
If you feel that fraud is being committed, by all means, you should
work to uncover it. Somehow I doubt you lack the training in
paleontology and techniques for dating fossils that will allow you to
make meaningful criticisms.
In academia, real scientists welcome public scrutiny after publication.
Until they are published, they'd like to have time to fully develop their
ideas, as these publications are the principal way that they are judged.
>In the U.S., the recent Shelby Amendment requires taxpayer-funded
>research data to be made available on demand to the public. This would
>minimize fraud in evolution if the public started invoking it.
The Shelby Amendment, while perhaps well meaning, is unnecessarily and
unproductively broad. Consider the cases of medical research of victims
of AIDS, Alzheimers, or other diseases. Under the Shelby Amendment,
the private medical information of these patients must be made available
under the FOI. Issues of privacy and confidentiality which are essential
to certain kinds of research are not well considered by this amendment.
And of course, the implication that there is fraud in evolution should be
addressed. Do you have evidence that there is fraud in the dating of Mungo
Man? Or fraud in other spheres of evolutionary thought? Turn this
from a political discussion into a scientific one.
Mark
>Andy
--
Mark VandeWettering's .signature contains six As, two Cs, three
Ds, twenty four Es, eight Fs, seven Gs, six Hs, fifteen Is, two
Ks, two Ms, sixteen Ns, nine Os, eight Rs, twenty eight Ss, twenty
one Ts, five Us, five Vs, eight Ws, four Xs, and four Ys.
Mark T. VandeWettering
>> >It doesn't matter whether one claims that (1) scientists knew the
>> >Piltdown Man was fake immediately circa 1912 (as one poster asserts)
>> >but didn't tell us until 1953, or (2) scientists thought the Piltdown
>> >Man was legitimate until 1953 and then told us as soon as they found
>> >out it was a fraud. Either way, it demonstrates that the scientific
>> >method was badly flawed, resulting in deception of the public for 40
>> >years. No other branch of science has this deplorable record.
>>
>> science make mistakes; the test is how they correct them. (All
>> religions also make mistakes, but correction is rare.)
>
>I don't think anyone made 40-yr mistakes about the first man
>on the moon.
>
>examples of other sciences or even (mainstream) religions making
>a blooper like Piltdown Man?
Does the word "Heliocentricity" ring a bell?
Mark
Roger Schlafly
> >In the U.S., the recent Shelby Amendment requires taxpayer-funded
> >research data to be made available on demand to the public. This would
> >minimize fraud in evolution if the public started invoking it.
>
> The Shelby Amendment, while perhaps well meaning, is unnecessarily and
> unproductively broad. Consider the cases of medical research of victims
> of AIDS, Alzheimers, or other diseases. Under the Shelby Amendment,
> the private medical information of these patients must be made available
> under the FOI.
Names do not have to be identified. But it is interesting that you
would try to use this as an excuse for covering up evolution data.
Do you think Mungo Man has some privacy rights? <g>
Roger Schlafly
> >Yes, how fields correct mistakes is a good test. Do you want to give
> >examples of other sciences or even (mainstream) religions making
> >a blooper like Piltdown Man?
>
> Does the word "Heliocentricity" ring a bell?
Copernicus's famous book was published with the imprimatur
(approval) of the Catholic Church. Do you think it was a
big mistake?
WickedDyno
<roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
Ice ages, Robert, ice ages.
WickedDyno
<roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> Louann Miller wrote:
> > On 9 Oct 2000 22:13:26 -0400, and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >It doesn't matter whether one claims that (1) scientists knew the
> > >Piltdown Man was fake immediately circa 1912 (as one poster asserts)
> > >but didn't tell us until 1953, or (2) scientists thought the Piltdown
> > >Man was legitimate until 1953 and then told us as soon as they found
> > >out it was a fraud. Either way, it demonstrates that the scientific
> > >method was badly flawed, resulting in deception of the public for 40
> > >years. No other branch of science has this deplorable record.
> >
> > Who was the first man on the moon in your timeline? All fields of
> > science make mistakes; the test is how they correct them. (All
> > religions also make mistakes, but correction is rare.)
>
> I don't think anyone made 40-yr mistakes about the first man
> on the moon.
>
> Yes, how fields correct mistakes is a good test. Do you want to give
> examples of other sciences or even (mainstream) religions making
> a blooper like Piltdown Man?
>
I recall the Catholic church deciding that St. Christopher (I think) was
actually not a saint.
Mitchell Coffey
> Piltdown Man was fake immediately circa 1912 (as one poster asserts)
> but didn't tell us until 1953, or (2) scientists thought the Piltdown
> Man was legitimate until 1953 and then told us as soon as they found
> out it was a fraud. Either way, it demonstrates that the scientific
> method was badly flawed, resulting in deception of the public for 40
> simply, proper scientific method does not permit such deception.
But let's examine your method. In your originating post on this thread
you claimed "There is no real evidence about Mungo Man posted on the
internet for public scrutiny. Nor is there any real discussion about
Mungo Man, and its implications, among evolutionists. What gives?"
Immediately, citations of scientific discussions regarding Mungo Man
and it implications were posted to you, in response. You've ignored
the fact that you were wrong.
Meanwhile, you've implied, without presenting any evidence, that Mungo
Man is a fraud. What kind of method is that?
Mitchell Coffey
_____________________________________________________
"Nostalgia is the handmaiden of fascism"
- Mary Gordon
Louann Miller
<amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.invalid> wrote:
>In article <39E3489D...@my-dejanews.com>, Roger Schlafly
><roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>> Yes, how fields correct mistakes is a good test. Do you want to give
>> examples of other sciences or even (mainstream) religions making
>> a blooper like Piltdown Man?
>I recall the Catholic church deciding that St. Christopher (I think) was
>actually not a saint.
And that thing about eating fish on Fridays. Apparently it used to be
damnable (i.e. made you eligible to go to Hell) but now it isn't. But
the people who went to Hell before the rules change don't get out on
that technicality.
You'd probably wiggle out by denying them "mainstream" status, but the
Mormons (okay, LDS) have some fairly serious problems as well. The
falsified New World archaeology, or the sudden policy switches on
matters like polygamy and full priesthood status for (male) nonwhite
converts.
Louann
Roger Schlafly
> But let's examine your method. In your originating post on this thread
> you claimed "There is no real evidence about Mungo Man posted on the
> internet for public scrutiny. Nor is there any real discussion about
> Mungo Man, and its implications, among evolutionists. What gives?"
> Immediately, citations of scientific discussions regarding Mungo Man
> and it implications were posted to you, in response.
Yeah, well I don't see Mungo Man himself posting anything here! <g>
Beowulf
Um. Did you read these pages? Sure they mention that there was a
behaviorist theory of lang. acq., but both articles (rightly, IMO)
conclude that the evidence suggests that the concept of an innate
biological capacity for language exists. Let me give you some quotes
from your "sources" to show you:
from the duke page:
"There seems to be enough evidence to suggest the existence of strict
biological constraints behind our language function. Biological
evidence supports the selectivist model, which takes after Chomsky,
that plastic preorganized brain structures are shaped to their final
form after a proper interaction with the environment."
Sounds pretty standard. We have language specific structures in
the brain that, if not activated within a certain critical period,
are taken over for use by other things (i.e., are plastic). This
happens fairly often in the brain. It's pretty fucking cool.
from the cogsci page:
"There is a volume of evidence to support Chomsky's claims of an
innate generative grammar, though it is difficult (and unscientific)
to introspect whether a transformational process occurs during
grammar acquisition, this would seem considerably more likely than a
`finite' system. These days `generative grammars' have become a
widely accepted theory in linguistics and cognitive science, for
they manage to answer more of the questions on the rapid and
creative nature of grammar acquisition than a Skinnerian, or even a
Neo Behaviourist, model can see fit."
Again, the evidence supports the idea of language-specific structures
in the brain. The behavioral models do not adequately fit the data
to be considered worthy of further investigation. Again this is nothing
earth-shattering.
Just to throw you a clue, the mere mention that 40 years ago there
existed a competing theory that has since been discredited based on
available evidence does not constitute a "debate".
There are certainly debates about the degree to which the evironment
primes and drives the lang. acq. process as well as how brain plasticity
affects the topology of brain structures/lateralization. None of these
debates seriously question the idea that there is a definite biological
component driving language acquisition and development in humans.
Next time try reading your sources before opening up your ass and
speaking. It'll save you from embarassing yourself.
Roger Schlafly
> Sure they mention that there was a
> behaviorist theory of lang. acq., but both articles (rightly, IMO)
> conclude that the evidence suggests that the concept of an innate
> biological capacity for language exists.
Ok, I'll put you down as being in the camp that thinks language
is hardwired in the brain.
> There are certainly debates about the degree to which the evironment
> primes and drives the lang. acq. process as well as how brain plasticity
> affects the topology of brain structures/lateralization. None of these
> debates seriously question the idea that there is a definite biological
> component driving language acquisition and development in humans.
Yes, that biological component is called the brain. But where is
the proof for Chomsky's theory?
Louann Miller
<roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
The problem with joking as a way of avoiding answering a question is
that people notice.
You asked for evidence on-line about a particular point. People gave
you evidence on-line. You apparently didn't read it or do anything
else that might expose you to the risk of having to change any
opinions.
Louann
Roger Schlafly
> You asked for evidence on-line about a particular point. People gave
> you evidence on-line.
Not me.
Geoff Sheffield
Roger Schlafly <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> "Mark T. VandeWettering" wrote:
> > >Yes, how fields correct mistakes is a good test. Do you want to
give
> > >examples of other sciences or even (mainstream) religions making
> > >a blooper like Piltdown Man?
> >
>
> Copernicus's famous book was published with the imprimatur
> (approval) of the Catholic Church. Do you think it was a
> big mistake?
>
I guess it didn't ring a bell with you. Geocentricity
comes to mind with me - that was a pretty big blooper,
wasn't it?
How about phlogiston?
How about the age of the earth? (Some religions are
still making a pretty big blooper here, but science
once thought the earth was young too.)
How about the idea that a heavy object falls faster
than a light object?
--
Geoff Sheffield
Rover
<roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>Rover wrote:
>> Who is debating? I thought the behaviorists had pretty much given up
>> the fight. Associationist theories can't account for children's
>> ability to abstract general rules from insufficient data, the
>> universal phases of language acquisition, or the formation of creoles
>> and dialects. If you know of an alternative theory that accounts
>> parsimoniously for such phenomena, I would be interested in hearing of
>> it.
>
>Here are a couple of pages discussing the debate:
>http://www.duke.edu/~pk10/language/neuro.htm
>http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Thinking.Psychologically96/0097.html
These pages don't support your claim. They refer to the debate between
Skinner and Chomsky that ended in the 1960s. Skinner couldn't account
for the phenomena I listed above. Chomsky could. For all practical
purposes the debate is over. If you doubt that humans possess an
innate language acquisition faculty, you will have to support that
view with something more than a theory that was falsified forty years
ago.
Rover
<roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
You have presented no evidence of any covering up of data. Don't you
think that when you make an accusation of fraud or cover-up, you have
an obligation to support your claim?
Mark T. VandeWettering
Roger Schlafly <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>"Mark T. VandeWettering" wrote:
>> >In the U.S., the recent Shelby Amendment requires taxpayer-funded
>> >research data to be made available on demand to the public. This would
>> >minimize fraud in evolution if the public started invoking it.
>>
>> The Shelby Amendment, while perhaps well meaning, is unnecessarily and
>> unproductively broad. Consider the cases of medical research of victims
>> of AIDS, Alzheimers, or other diseases. Under the Shelby Amendment,
>> the private medical information of these patients must be made available
>> under the FOI.
>
>Names do not have to be identified. But it is interesting that you
>would try to use this as an excuse for covering up evolution data.
>Do you think Mungo Man has some privacy rights? <g>
It is far from clear from the wording of the Shelby Amendment that names
do not have to be identified. It is entirely possible that (say) some
group may claim that all participants in an AIDS study be indentified, and
be able to successfully sue under this amendment. I disagree with it
on that basis.
On a more down to earth level, the Shelby Amendment doesn't specify
the timing, nature or limits of the information that needs to be
divulged by scientists. In the case of much of the work done by
JPL/NASA, the principal investigators are typically given some
grace period (which has been a year in the past) to analyze the
data before it is released for public consumption. This allows
the principal investigators who spend good chunks of their carreers
and lives planning space missions to have enough time to publish
based upon this work. That seems to be a reasonable compromise
between the realistic needs of the scientists and the accountability
to the taxpayer.
And of course, there is the small detail that the Mungo skeletons
were discovered by Professor Jim Bowler from the University of Melbourne.
It is unlikely that Australian research, publically funded or not, are
subject to the restrictions of the Shelby Amendment.
As an aside, is there actually some kind of scientific argument in
all your bluster? Do you actually have some evidence that fraud
has occurred? Is there something you consider especially absurd
about the claim? Just what do you think it does to the case for
human evolution?
wf...@ptd.net
<roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>Louann Miller wrote:
>> On 9 Oct 2000 22:13:26 -0400, and...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> >It doesn't matter whether one claims that (1) scientists knew the
>> >Piltdown Man was fake immediately circa 1912 (as one poster asserts)
>> >but didn't tell us until 1953, or (2) scientists thought the Piltdown
>> >Man was legitimate until 1953 and then told us as soon as they found
>> >out it was a fraud. Either way, it demonstrates that the scientific
>> >method was badly flawed, resulting in deception of the public for 40
>> >years. No other branch of science has this deplorable record.
>>
>> Who was the first man on the moon in your timeline? All fields of
>> science make mistakes; the test is how they correct them. (All
>> religions also make mistakes, but correction is rare.)
>
>I don't think anyone made 40-yr mistakes about the first man
>on the moon.
>
>Yes, how fields correct mistakes is a good test. Do you want to give
>examples of other sciences or even (mainstream) religions making
>a blooper like Piltdown Man?
yeah. N rays...polywater...
>
Boikat
Moab Man/Malachite Man
Glenn Rose Man.
The London Object.
Claims of human footprints next to dinosaur
footprints.
THE ark of Noah (3 of them?)
....
That is, *if* you consider fundamentalist
creationists as being members of a "mainstream"
religion...
Roger Schlafly
> >Yes, how fields correct mistakes is a good test. Do you want to give
> >examples of other sciences or even (mainstream) religions making
> >a blooper like Piltdown Man?
>
Polywater was a joke. I mean real bloopers.
Discover magazine (current issue) lists some science bloopers,
but not like Piltdown Man.
and...@my-deja.com
You disagree with its application to evolution research on this
basis??!!
[snip]
> And of course, there is the small detail that the Mungo skeletons
> were discovered by Professor Jim Bowler from the University of
Melbourne.
> It is unlikely that Australian research, publically funded or not,
are
> subject to the restrictions of the Shelby Amendment.
Which, if true, would enable fraud or honest mistakes to remain
undetected for years, perhaps decades.
Whose side are you on, the advancement of science or the concealment of
errors?
> As an aside, is there actually some kind of scientific argument in
> all your bluster? Do you actually have some evidence that fraud
> has occurred? Is there something you consider especially absurd
> about the claim? Just what do you think it does to the case for
> human evolution?
Real scientists favor public scrutiny, and the eradication of errors.
No interest is served by the concealment of errors or fraud. Surely we
can agree on that.
Andy
Roger Schlafly
but not like Piltdown Man. (Well, there was a phony fossil on
the list, but not a 45-yr fake.)
and...@my-deja.com
Rover <n...@sonic.net> wrote:
> On 10 Oct 2000 13:35:34 -0400, Roger Schlafly
> <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>
> >"Mark T. VandeWettering" wrote:
> >> >In the U.S., the recent Shelby Amendment requires taxpayer-funded
> >> >research data to be made available on demand to the public. This
would
> >> >minimize fraud in evolution if the public started invoking it.
> >>
> >> The Shelby Amendment, while perhaps well meaning, is unnecessarily
and
> >> unproductively broad. Consider the cases of medical research of
victims
> >> of AIDS, Alzheimers, or other diseases. Under the Shelby
Amendment,
> >> the private medical information of these patients must be made
available
> >> under the FOI.
> >
> >Names do not have to be identified. But it is interesting that you
> >would try to use this as an excuse for covering up evolution data.
> >Do you think Mungo Man has some privacy rights? <g>
>
> think that when you make an accusation of fraud or cover-up, you have
> an obligation to support your claim?
The evidence has been withheld from public scrutiny. Independent
scientists have sharply criticized the conclusion of the Mungo Man
promoters.
As Justice Brandeis once said in connection with public disclosure laws
for the US stock markets, "Sunshine is the best disinfectant."
and...@my-deja.com
Geoff Sheffield <geo...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <39E353B2...@my-dejanews.com>,
> give
> > > >examples of other sciences or even (mainstream) religions making
> > > >a blooper like Piltdown Man?
> > >
> >
> > Copernicus's famous book was published with the imprimatur
> > (approval) of the Catholic Church. Do you think it was a
> > big mistake?
> >
>
> I guess it didn't ring a bell with you. Geocentricity
> comes to mind with me - that was a pretty big blooper,
> wasn't it?
>
> How about phlogiston?
>
> How about the age of the earth? (Some religions are
> still making a pretty big blooper here, but science
> once thought the earth was young too.)
>
> How about the idea that a heavy object falls faster
> than a light object?
You're comparing vastly different periods of time, and vastly different
levels of sophistication in scientific method.
In the 1900s, we expect the disciplined scientific methodology of the
1900s to be used. It isn't for evolution.
Find a Piltdown Man debacle in any other scientific field in the
1900s. Find anything that even remotely approaches it.
Mark T. VandeWettering
>In article <cCME5.302429$i5.43...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com>,
> rayt...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> It is far from clear from the wording of the Shelby Amendment that
>> names do not have to be identified. It is entirely possible that
>> (say) some group may claim that all participants in an AIDS study
>> be indentified, and be able to successfully sue under this amendment.
>> I disagree with it on that basis.
>You disagree with its application to evolution research on this
>basis??!!
*sigh* I disagree with it in general on that basis. Contrary to
assertions by some, not every question of humanity boils down to
questions about evolution.
>> And of course, there is the small detail that the Mungo skeletons
>> were discovered by Professor Jim Bowler from the University of
>> Melbourne. It is unlikely that Australian research, publically
>> funded or not, are subject to the restrictions of the Shelby
>> Amendment.
>Which, if true, would enable fraud or honest mistakes to remain
>undetected for years, perhaps decades.
What fraud? What mistakes? Has anyone suggested that fraud is
being committed? Anyone besides you?
>Whose side are you on, the advancement of science or the concealment of
>errors?
What errors? What concealment?
>> As an aside, is there actually some kind of scientific argument in
>> all your bluster? Do you actually have some evidence that fraud
>> has occurred? Is there something you consider especially absurd
>> about the claim? Just what do you think it does to the case for
>> human evolution?
>
>Real scientists favor public scrutiny, and the eradication of errors.
>No interest is served by the concealment of errors or fraud. Surely we
>can agree on that.
Can you please answer the questions that were asked? Do you have an
argument to make about the Mungo fossils or don't you?
Mark
>Andy
rokimo...@my-deja.com
and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <39e13e0e....@news.SullyButtes.net>,
> c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
> > On 8 Oct 2000 22:36:52 -0400, sc...@home.com wrote:
> > >In <39e10df7....@news.SullyButtes.net>, c...@tiac.net (Richard
> Harter) writes:
> Piltdown Man was fake immediately circa 1912 (as one poster asserts)
> but didn't tell us until 1953, or (2) scientists thought the Piltdown
> Man was legitimate until 1953 and then told us as soon as they found
> out it was a fraud. Either way, it demonstrates that the scientific
> method was badly flawed, resulting in deception of the public for 40
> simply, proper scientific method does not permit such deception.
snip
Uh, what about scientific creationism? Oh yea, I forgot, that's not
science.
Ron Okimoto
Mark T. VandeWettering
>> You have presented no evidence of any covering up of data. Don't you
>> think that when you make an accusation of fraud or cover-up, you have
>> an obligation to support your claim?
>
>The evidence has been withheld from public scrutiny. Independent
>scientists have sharply criticized the conclusion of the Mungo Man
>promoters.
Do you have to wake up early to get enough hours in the day to be
this stupid? I can't believe that anyone is this stupid naturally,
it must take serious training.
I tell you what Andy, just what do you want from the scientists who
currently have access to the fossils in question. In particular, what
additional testing would you have them perform? What additional
disclosures do you want from them?
If you can't name anything, then I would say that they have not witheld
the evidence from public scrutiny, and that you are just a trolling
windbag (something for which we have ample evidence already admittedly,
but science occasionally likes to check its conclusions by reexamining
evidence).
>As Justice Brandeis once said in connection with public disclosure laws
>for the US stock markets, "Sunshine is the best disinfectant."
As I once said, "ignorance is curable".
I might have been mistaken.
Roger Schlafly
> Find a Piltdown Man debacle in any other scientific field in the
> 1900s. Find anything that even remotely approaches it.
How about Sigmund Freud? He faked his data in support of goofy
and false theories, but much of psychology was sucked by his
nonsense for longer than the 45 yrs Piltdown Man fooled people.
Roger Schlafly
> I guess it didn't ring a bell with you. Geocentricity
> comes to mind with me - that was a pretty big blooper,
> wasn't it?
> How about phlogiston?
> How about the age of the earth?
> than a light object?
No. Those were not bloopers. They were reasonable approximations,
and useful theories at the time. None involving scheming
scientists who fraudulently cooked evidence to cater to the
prejudices of other scientists in order to promote an atheistic
agenda. Not at all similar to Piltdown Man.
Roger Schlafly
> I recall the Catholic church deciding that St. Christopher (I think) was
> actually not a saint.
That's a good example. There have been a number people who the
Church promoted to sainthood, but later info showed that they
weren't so saintly after all. I believe that the Church has
quietly demoted some of these saints.
If it could be shown that the Vatican deliberately ignored the
possibility of bad before by these saints, and ignored it for
essentially political reasons, then you might have a situation
that would be comparable to Piltdown Man. Any Vatican scholars
have the facts?
wf...@ptd.net
>In article <8rvumf$o37$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Geoff Sheffield <geo...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> In article <39E353B2...@my-dejanews.com>,
>> Roger Schlafly <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>> > "Mark T. VandeWettering" wrote:
>> > > >Yes, how fields correct mistakes is a good test. Do you want to
>> give
>> > > >examples of other sciences or even (mainstream) religions making
>> > > >a blooper like Piltdown Man?
>> > >
>> > > Does the word "Heliocentricity" ring a bell?
>> >
>> > Copernicus's famous book was published with the imprimatur
>> > (approval) of the Catholic Church. Do you think it was a
>> > big mistake?
>> >
>>
>> I guess it didn't ring a bell with you. Geocentricity
>> comes to mind with me - that was a pretty big blooper,
>> wasn't it?
>>
>> How about phlogiston?
>>
>> How about the age of the earth? (Some religions are
>> still making a pretty big blooper here, but science
>> once thought the earth was young too.)
>>
>> How about the idea that a heavy object falls faster
>> than a light object?
>
>You're comparing vastly different periods of time, and vastly different
>levels of sophistication in scientific method.
of course, creationists routinely say an idea expressed 3000 yrs ago
is literally, scientifically true.
>
wf...@ptd.net
<roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>> >Yes, how fields correct mistakes is a good test. Do you want to give
>> >examples of other sciences or even (mainstream) religions making
>> >a blooper like Piltdown Man?
>>
>> yeah. N rays...polywater...
>
>Polywater was a joke. I mean real bloopers.
>
polywater wasnt a joke to the russians or the french...
wf...@ptd.net
>In article <e607us0v4dvk0rtlo...@4ax.com>,
> Rover <n...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> On 10 Oct 2000 13:35:34 -0400, Roger Schlafly
>> <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"Mark T. VandeWettering" wrote:
>> >> >In the U.S., the recent Shelby Amendment requires taxpayer-funded
>> >> >research data to be made available on demand to the public. This
>would
>> >> >minimize fraud in evolution if the public started invoking it.
>> >>
>> >> The Shelby Amendment, while perhaps well meaning, is unnecessarily
>and
>> >> unproductively broad. Consider the cases of medical research of
>victims
>> >> of AIDS, Alzheimers, or other diseases. Under the Shelby
>Amendment,
>> >> the private medical information of these patients must be made
>available
>> >> under the FOI.
>> >
>> >Names do not have to be identified. But it is interesting that you
>> >would try to use this as an excuse for covering up evolution data.
>> >Do you think Mungo Man has some privacy rights? <g>
>>
>> You have presented no evidence of any covering up of data. Don't you
>> think that when you make an accusation of fraud or cover-up, you have
>> an obligation to support your claim?
>
>The evidence has been withheld from public scrutiny. Independent
>scientists have sharply criticized the conclusion of the Mungo Man
>promoters.
ooohhhh!!! another conspiracy!! arent we lucky we have so many
fundamentalist church members to point it out...and what is an
'independent scientist"??
and...@my-deja.com
rayt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> In article <8s0987$189$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <and...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> >In article <cCME5.302429$i5.43...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com>,
> > rayt...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >> It is far from clear from the wording of the Shelby Amendment that
> >> names do not have to be identified. It is entirely possible that
> >> (say) some group may claim that all participants in an AIDS study
> >> be indentified, and be able to successfully sue under this
amendment.
> >> I disagree with it on that basis.
>
> >You disagree with its application to evolution research on this
> >basis??!!
>
> *sigh* I disagree with it in general on that basis. Contrary to
> assertions by some, not every question of humanity boils down to
> questions about evolution.
Another ducked question here. The law passed. Do you oppose applying
it to evolution research? Evolutionists, I must admit, are great at
ducking questions, so I don't expect a straight answer.
> >> And of course, there is the small detail that the Mungo skeletons
> >> were discovered by Professor Jim Bowler from the University of
> >> Melbourne. It is unlikely that Australian research, publically
> >> funded or not, are subject to the restrictions of the Shelby
> >> Amendment.
>
> >Which, if true, would enable fraud or honest mistakes to remain
> >undetected for years, perhaps decades.
>
> What fraud? What mistakes? Has anyone suggested that fraud is
> being committed? Anyone besides you?
Don't you follow the evolution literature? Scientists do claim that
the asserted age of 62,000 years is a mistake.
> >Whose side are you on, the advancement of science or the concealment
of
> >errors?
>
> What errors? What concealment?
I'm sorry. I assumed a basic familiarity with the literature -- or at
least the postings on this topic. See above.
>
> >> As an aside, is there actually some kind of scientific argument in
> >> all your bluster? Do you actually have some evidence that fraud
> >> has occurred? Is there something you consider especially absurd
> >> about the claim? Just what do you think it does to the case for
> >> human evolution?
> >
> >Real scientists favor public scrutiny, and the eradication of errors.
> >No interest is served by the concealment of errors or fraud. Surely
we
> >can agree on that.
>
> Can you please answer the questions that were asked? Do you have an
> argument to make about the Mungo fossils or don't you?
See above.
Andy
and...@my-deja.com
You're right! And Stephen Gould still cites Sigmund Freud, which
breaks record for deception longevity held by the Piltdown Man!
Perhaps Gould should be given an award for perpetuating a scientific
fraud for the longest time in the 1900s.
wf...@ptd.net
>In article <JUNE5.302853$i5.43...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com>,
> rayt...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> In article <8s0987$189$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <and...@my-deja.com>
>wrote:
>> >In article <cCME5.302429$i5.43...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com>,
>> > rayt...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> >> It is far from clear from the wording of the Shelby Amendment that
>> >> names do not have to be identified. It is entirely possible that
>> >> (say) some group may claim that all participants in an AIDS study
>> >> be indentified, and be able to successfully sue under this
>amendment.
>> >> I disagree with it on that basis.
>>
>> >You disagree with its application to evolution research on this
>> >basis??!!
>>
>> *sigh* I disagree with it in general on that basis. Contrary to
>> assertions by some, not every question of humanity boils down to
>> questions about evolution.
>
>Another ducked question here. The law passed. Do you oppose applying
>it to evolution research? Evolutionists, I must admit, are great at
>ducking questions, so I don't expect a straight answer.
really? we are?
just ask a creationist the question:
how does creationism work?
you want a song and dance? they dance like fred astaire
Craig Patrick Walsh
: In article <8rvumf$o37$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
: Geoff Sheffield <geo...@my-deja.com> wrote:
: > Roger Schlafly <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
: > > "Mark T. VandeWettering" wrote:
: > > > >Yes, how fields correct mistakes is a good test. Do you want to
: > give
: > > > >examples of other sciences or even (mainstream) religions making
: > > > >a blooper like Piltdown Man?
: > > > Does the word "Heliocentricity" ring a bell?
: > >
: > > Copernicus's famous book was published with the imprimatur
: > > (approval) of the Catholic Church. Do you think it was a
: > > big mistake?
: > >
: >
: > I guess it didn't ring a bell with you. Geocentricity
: > comes to mind with me - that was a pretty big blooper,
: > wasn't it?
: >
: > How about phlogiston?
: >
: > How about the age of the earth? (Some religions are
: > still making a pretty big blooper here, but science
: > once thought the earth was young too.)
: >
: > How about the idea that a heavy object falls faster
: > than a light object?
: You're comparing vastly different periods of time, and vastly different
: levels of sophistication in scientific method.
: In the 1900s, we expect the disciplined scientific methodology of the
: 1900s to be used. It isn't for evolution.
: Find a Piltdown Man debacle in any other scientific field in the
: 1900s. Find anything that even remotely approaches it.
Why on earth should we? Your futile attempt to indict the entire field of
evolutionary biology - which spans more than a century of time and
thousands, if not tens of thousands, of honest scientists, is silly. Your
entire collection of frauds consists of:
1) A fraud perpetrated by one or a handful of people that occurred 100
years
ago and was uncovered 50 years, long before most of us were even born, and
which was only revelent to one small portion of evolutionary theory -
namely
the specific details of human evolution.
and
2) A fraudulent Chinese fossil that was rejected by proper scientific
journals and only published in a popular magazine. The fraud in question
was
quickly uncovered, and admitted publically.
In addition to this you have made repeated accusations of fraud in regards
to Mungo Man, yet have given no evidence for this beyond the bald
assertion,
"The evidence has been withheld from public scrutiny," and you have made
no attempt to explain any futher details which would allow us to evaluate
your claim.
I say again: "Put up or shut up." If you feel there is specific reason to
think that fraud (as opposed to honest mistakes) is involved in Mungo Man,
then state it now, with references to accesible literature or websites.
Similarly, if you feel there is evidence of long-term, wide-spread,
systemic
fraud in the field of evolutionary biology (as opposed to the pitiful pair
of examples you dredged up), then state it now, with references. (And
testimonials from from young-earth creationists don't count.)
Of course you will not answer these questions, since you are a fraud
yourself. Your posts are full of juvenille loaded questions such as "Whose
side are you on, the advancement of science or the concealment of errors?"
and you have blatantly distorted Mark T. VandeWettering's remarks on the
Shelby Amendment in a remarkably transparent attempt create false
controversy
where none exists.You have had plenty of opportunities to present your
case,
yet you have chosen not to. The reason is obvious: you are just here to
irritate people.
I will not be bothering to read any more of your idiotic posts, and I
suspect that most other people are beginning to get tired of your garbage
as well.
---
Craig
Boikat
>
> In article <e607us0v4dvk0rtlo...@4ax.com>,
> Rover <n...@sonic.net> wrote:
> > >> >research data to be made available on demand to the public. This
> would
> > >> >minimize fraud in evolution if the public started invoking it.
> > >>
> > >> The Shelby Amendment, while perhaps well meaning, is unnecessarily
> and
> > >> unproductively broad. Consider the cases of medical research of
> victims
> > >> of AIDS, Alzheimers, or other diseases. Under the Shelby
> Amendment,
> > >> the private medical information of these patients must be made
> available
> > >> under the FOI.
> > >
> > >Names do not have to be identified. But it is interesting that you
> > >would try to use this as an excuse for covering up evolution data.
> > >Do you think Mungo Man has some privacy rights? <g>
> >
> > You have presented no evidence of any covering up of data. Don't you
> > think that when you make an accusation of fraud or cover-up, you have
> > an obligation to support your claim?
>
Depends on what you mean by "public" too. Such
fossils are rare and valuable to science, and it
wouldn't help any if they let any Tom Dick and
Harry come in with a hammer to "examine" the
evidence.
> Independent
> scientists have sharply criticized the conclusion of the Mungo Man
> promoters.
How could they do this if they did not have access
to the materials and information? Oh, that's
right, since they do not have ready access, there
must be a cover up.
>
> As Justice Brandeis once said in connection with public disclosure laws
> for the US stock markets, "Sunshine is the best disinfectant."
Brandeis thought bacterium's are vampires?
Boikat
Roger Schlafly
> 1) A fraud perpetrated by one or a handful of people that occurred 100
> years
> ago and was uncovered 50 years, long before most of us were even born, and
The evolutionists here regularly attack creationists because of
what nazi, commie, or KKK crackpots said 50 or more yrs ago.
I hope you'll attack them even more.
> which was only revelent to one small portion of evolutionary theory -
> namely the specific details of human evolution.
And humans are just animals in another species, no more important
than any other species, right?
Roger Schlafly
> > How about Sigmund Freud? He faked his data in support of goofy
> > and false theories, but much of psychology was sucked by his
> > nonsense for longer than the 45 yrs Piltdown Man fooled people.
>
> You're right! And Stephen Gould still cites Sigmund Freud, which
> breaks record for deception longevity held by the Piltdown Man!
Big time. It is hard to find a Gould book or essay that doesn't
quote Freud and treat him with the reverence of a great scientist.
> Perhaps Gould should be given an award for perpetuating a scientific
> fraud for the longest time in the 1900s.
Now are you referring to his Freudianism, his peculiar brand of
Darwinism, his punctuated evolution, his anti-intelligence theories,
or what?
Chris Ho-Stuart
>> >Which, if true, would enable fraud or honest mistakes to remain
>> >undetected for years, perhaps decades.
>>
>> What fraud? What mistakes? Has anyone suggested that fraud is
>> being committed? Anyone besides you?
>
> Don't you follow the evolution literature? Scientists do claim that
> the asserted age of 62,000 years is a mistake.
Some do, some don't. Disagreement is not fraud. There is zero
evidence of fraud in this absurd thread.
There is an ongoing question as to the time of arrival of humanity
in Australia. Dates proposed range from about 40Kyears to 100Kyears
ago. The recent redating of Mungo remains give some evidence for
human arrival about 62K years ago. The most common mainstream
estimate is currently about 53K years. Recent data from Mungo is
evidence that it should be a bit older. That data is not universally
accepted; but on the other hand it has not yet been shown to be
incorrect or in error. It is a puzzle, and will only be resolved
when a source of error is identified, or else the early dates are
confirmed by independent evidence in other sites. That means it
could potentially remain a puzzle for some time to come.
What is hillarious is halfwits like yourself taking this rather
vigourous public debate as signs of fraud or deception. There is
definitely some error somewhere; science is full of estimates,
and revised estimates, and erroneous measures. And there are heaps
of blithering idiots on the sidelines who reject the whole edifice
of science because it conflicts with their religion, but try to
pretend that there rejection is well founded and justifiable by
the existence of debate and uncertainty at the frontlines of new
investigation by scientists.
Cheers -- Chris
wf...@ptd.net
<roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>Craig Patrick Walsh wrote:
>> 1) A fraud perpetrated by one or a handful of people that occurred 100
>> years
>> ago and was uncovered 50 years, long before most of us were even born, and
>
>The evolutionists here regularly attack creationists because of
>what nazi, commie, or KKK crackpots said 50 or more yrs ago.
>I hope you'll attack them even more.
of course, creationists routinely call science 'naziism'....godwin's
law is in full effect with creationists.
Richard Harter
<roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>Geoff Sheffield wrote:
>> I guess it didn't ring a bell with you. Geocentricity
>> comes to mind with me - that was a pretty big blooper,
>> wasn't it?
>> How about phlogiston?
>> How about the age of the earth?
>> How about the idea that a heavy object falls faster
>> than a light object?
>
>No. Those were not bloopers. They were reasonable approximations,
>and useful theories at the time. None involving scheming
>scientists who fraudulently cooked evidence to cater to the
>prejudices of other scientists in order to promote an atheistic
>agenda. Not at all similar to Piltdown Man.
Then again, your description doesn't apply to Piltdown Man either.
You did know that, didn't you?
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net
http://www.tiac.net/users/cri
"It was half way to Rivendell when the drugs began to take hold"
Hunter S Tolkien "Fear and Loathing in Barad Dur" - Iain Bowen
WickedDyno
> In article <cCME5.302429$i5.43...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com>,
> rayt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > In article <39E3531B...@my-dejanews.com>, Roger Schlafly
> > <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> > >"Mark T. VandeWettering" wrote:
> > >> >In the U.S., the recent Shelby Amendment requires
> > >> >taxpayer-funded research data to be made available on demand to
> > >> >the public. This would minimize fraud in evolution if the
> > >> >public started invoking it.
> > >>
> > >> The Shelby Amendment, while perhaps well meaning, is
> > >> unnecessarily and unproductively broad. Consider the cases of
> > >> medical research of victims of AIDS, Alzheimers, or other
> > >> diseases. Under the Shelby Amendment, the private medical
> > >> information of these patients must be made available under the
> > >> FOI.
> > >
> > >Names do not have to be identified. But it is interesting that you
> > >would try to use this as an excuse for covering up evolution data.
> > >Do you think Mungo Man has some privacy rights? <g>
> >
> > It is far from clear from the wording of the Shelby Amendment that
> > names do not have to be identified. It is entirely possible that
> > (say) some group may claim that all participants in an AIDS study
> > be indentified, and be able to successfully sue under this
> > amendment. I disagree with it on that basis.
>
> You disagree with its application to evolution research on this
> basis??!!
Evolution research is rarely classified. That's what this amendment is
against -- classification of research by the government. But it could
easily be misused to prevent protection of personal privacy in the
course of scientific studies. Evolution research also rarely involves
the protection of personal privacy.
> [snip]
> > And of course, there is the small detail that the Mungo skeletons
> > were discovered by Professor Jim Bowler from the University of
> > Melbourne. It is unlikely that Australian research, publically
> > funded or not, are subject to the restrictions of the Shelby
> > Amendment.
>
> Which, if true, would enable fraud or honest mistakes to remain
> undetected for years, perhaps decades.
Except that the Shelby Amendment is not the reason why Mungo Man will be
available for public (meaning the scientific community) scrutiny. The
reason why is because of the way that science works by default.
> Whose side are you on, the advancement of science or the concealment
> of errors?
"Whose side are you on" -- the true cry of a damagogue.
> > As an aside, is there actually some kind of scientific argument in
> > all your bluster? Do you actually have some evidence that fraud
> > has occurred? Is there something you consider especially absurd
> > about the claim? Just what do you think it does to the case for
> > human evolution?
>
> Real scientists favor public scrutiny, and the eradication of errors.
> No interest is served by the concealment of errors or fraud. Surely
> we can agree on that.
Indeed. And if you have evidence that the men who discovered Mungo are
covering something up, please elighten us. Otherwise, do not cast
doubt upon their characters without reason.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
Boikat
How quaint.
Chris Ho-Stuart
> Craig Patrick Walsh wrote:
>> 1) A fraud perpetrated by one or a handful of people that occurred 100
>> years
>> ago and was uncovered 50 years, long before most of us were even born, and
>
> The evolutionists here regularly attack creationists because of
> what nazi, commie, or KKK crackpots said 50 or more yrs ago.
> I hope you'll attack them even more.
I think this is untrue. What *actually* happens is that someone
else seeks to discredit evolution by various kinds of ad hominem
fallacy; and it is in response to this that nazi/commie/KKK crackpots
are shown to be not particularly good reasons for being skeptical
of evolution.
>> which was only revelent to one small portion of evolutionary theory -
>> namely the specific details of human evolution.
>
> And humans are just animals in another species, no more important
> than any other species, right?
Huh? This seems a total non-sequitur. The Piltdown fraud was as a
matter of fact only relevant to a very small portion of evolutionary
theory. Humans are very important indeed, of course, especially to
us humans; this does not make them central in the study of biology
or of evolution. What is important and different and special
about humanity is not that we have atypical biology.
Cheers -- Chris
Boikat
>
> Craig Patrick Walsh wrote:
> > 1) A fraud perpetrated by one or a handful of people that occurred 100
> > years
> > ago and was uncovered 50 years, long before most of us were even born, and
>
> The evolutionists here regularly attack creationists because of
> what nazi, commie, or KKK crackpots said 50 or more yrs ago.
We also "attack" creationists who currently make
the same claims that those creationist made (And
which were also refuted) 50 years ago, when they
make the same claims today.
> I hope you'll attack them even more.
>
> > which was only revelent to one small portion of evolutionary theory -
> > namely the specific details of human evolution.
>
> And humans are just animals in another species, no more important
> than any other species, right?
In a certain context, yes. Did you have some
point besides the one on your head?
Boikat
Craig Patrick Walsh
: Craig Patrick Walsh wrote:
: > 1) A fraud perpetrated by one or a handful of people that occurred 100
: > years
: > ago and was uncovered 50 years, long before most of us were even born, and
: The evolutionists here regularly attack creationists because of
: what nazi, commie, or KKK crackpots said 50 or more yrs ago.
: I hope you'll attack them even more.
: > which was only revelent to one small portion of evolutionary theory -
: > namely the specific details of human evolution.
: And humans are just animals in another species, no more important
: than any other species, right?
Your unsubstantive comments have been noted. Are you deliberately
avoiding the issues with your red herrings, or do you honestly have a
reading comprehension problem? If you want to expand on your above points,
do so in another thread. People will be happy to deal with them there.
The issue at handy is Andy's post.
--
Craig
Matt Silberstein
and...@my-deja.com:
>In article <39E3AE01...@my-dejanews.com>,
> Roger Schlafly <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>> and...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> > Find a Piltdown Man debacle in any other scientific field in the
>> > 1900s. Find anything that even remotely approaches it.
>>
>> How about Sigmund Freud? He faked his data in support of goofy
>> and false theories, but much of psychology was sucked by his
>> nonsense for longer than the 45 yrs Piltdown Man fooled people.
>
>You're right! And Stephen Gould still cites Sigmund Freud, which
>breaks record for deception longevity held by the Piltdown Man!
>
>Perhaps Gould should be given an award for perpetuating a scientific
>fraud for the longest time in the 1900s.
You guys sure are a funny team. You should take the show on the road.
I mean it. On the road and way from net access.
--
Matt Silberstein
Let me ride on the wall of death one more time
You can waste your chances on the other rides
This is the nearest to being alive
Let me take my chances on the wall of death
R.T.
Rebecca Ore
(Snips)
>
> And humans are just animals in another species, no more important
> than any other species, right?
>
The species is important to us because we're members of it. We're not
as important as plants and nitrogen-fixing bacteria. We could be
eliminated and life would go on.
--
Rebecca Ore
http://www.ogoense.net
Mark T. VandeWettering
>In article <JUNE5.302853$i5.43...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com>,
> rayt...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> In article <8s0987$189$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <and...@my-deja.com>
>wrote:
>> >In article <cCME5.302429$i5.43...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com>,
>> > rayt...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> >> It is far from clear from the wording of the Shelby Amendment that
>> >> names do not have to be identified. It is entirely possible that
>> >> (say) some group may claim that all participants in an AIDS study
>> >> be indentified, and be able to successfully sue under this
>amendment.
>> >> I disagree with it on that basis.
>>
>> >You disagree with its application to evolution research on this
>> >basis??!!
>>
>> assertions by some, not every question of humanity boils down to
>> questions about evolution.
>
>Another ducked question here. The law passed. Do you oppose applying
>it to evolution research? Evolutionists, I must admit, are great at
>ducking questions, so I don't expect a straight answer.
Laws (good or bad) apply equally to all spheres of human endeavor.
I didn't claim that it shouldn't apply, merely that it was only fuzzily
thought out and raises some concerns about privacy.
>> >> And of course, there is the small detail that the Mungo skeletons
>> >> were discovered by Professor Jim Bowler from the University of
>> >> Melbourne. It is unlikely that Australian research, publically
>> >> funded or not, are subject to the restrictions of the Shelby
>> >> Amendment.
>>
>> >Which, if true, would enable fraud or honest mistakes to remain
>> >undetected for years, perhaps decades.
>>
>> What fraud? What mistakes? Has anyone suggested that fraud is
>> being committed? Anyone besides you?
>
>Don't you follow the evolution literature? Scientists do claim that
>the asserted age of 62,000 years is a mistake.
Some claim that. Others don't. It appears to be a subject which is
currently being debated at length. I'm quite satisfied that the
scientists engaging in this research to continue their work. Whatever
side eventually is proven correct will be fine with me.
>> >Whose side are you on, the advancement of science or the concealment
>of
>> >errors?
>>
>> What errors? What concealment?
>
>I'm sorry. I assumed a basic familiarity with the literature -- or at
>least the postings on this topic. See above.
Whether "errors" exist is still the matter for debate. "Errors" of this
type are not uncommon in science. Science works by uncovering these
errors. One person proposes, others submit their work to peer review.
Hopefully someday concensus is reached, although many theories remain
rather speculative.
>> >> As an aside, is there actually some kind of scientific argument in
>> >> all your bluster? Do you actually have some evidence that fraud
>> >> has occurred? Is there something you consider especially absurd
>> >> about the claim? Just what do you think it does to the case for
>> >> human evolution?
>> >
>> >Real scientists favor public scrutiny, and the eradication of errors.
>> >No interest is served by the concealment of errors or fraud. Surely
>we
>> >can agree on that.
>>
>> Can you please answer the questions that were asked? Do you have an
>> argument to make about the Mungo fossils or don't you?
>
>See above.
Ah. You don't. That hardly comes as a surprise.
Matt Silberstein
Schlafly <roger...@my-dejanews.com>:
>Geoff Sheffield wrote:
>> I guess it didn't ring a bell with you. Geocentricity
>> comes to mind with me - that was a pretty big blooper,
>> wasn't it?
>> How about phlogiston?
>> How about the age of the earth?
>> How about the idea that a heavy object falls faster
>> than a light object?
>
>No. Those were not bloopers. They were reasonable approximations,
>and useful theories at the time. None involving scheming
>scientists who fraudulently cooked evidence to cater to the
>prejudices of other scientists in order to promote an atheistic
>agenda. Not at all similar to Piltdown Man.
So lets see what point you have. There have not been any frauds in any
science but evolutionary biology. Evolution had one that made it into
peer-review and one that did not. And from this you draw what
conclusion?
(BTW, there have been plenty of other frauds, but I don't want to
bother you with data.)
Matt Silberstein
and...@my-deja.com:
>In article <cCME5.302429$i5.43...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com>,
> rayt...@yahoo.com wrote:
[snip]
>> And of course, there is the small detail that the Mungo skeletons
>> were discovered by Professor Jim Bowler from the University of
>Melbourne.
>> It is unlikely that Australian research, publically funded or not,
>are
>> subject to the restrictions of the Shelby Amendment.
>
>Which, if true, would enable fraud or honest mistakes to remain
>undetected for years, perhaps decades.
>
>Whose side are you on, the advancement of science or the concealment of
>errors?
Andy may be the most jingoistic person I have ever encountered. My
respect to you sir, it takes a serious commitment to achieve that kind
of status. I can see how you have had to sacrifice other aspects of
your thinking, but I suppose the achievement was worth it.
[snip]
Dick C.
>Two sock puppets patting each other on the back.
>How quaint.
one person talking to himself. Rather sickening actually.
>
>
>Roger Schlafly wrote:
>>
>> and...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> > > How about Sigmund Freud? He faked his data in support of goofy
>> > > and false theories, but much of psychology was sucked by his
>> > > nonsense for longer than the 45 yrs Piltdown Man fooled people.
>> >
>> > You're right! And Stephen Gould still cites Sigmund Freud, which
>> > breaks record for deception longevity held by the Piltdown Man!
>>
>> Big time. It is hard to find a Gould book or essay that doesn't
>> quote Freud and treat him with the reverence of a great scientist.
>>
>> > Perhaps Gould should be given an award for perpetuating a scientific
>> > fraud for the longest time in the 1900s.
>>
>> Now are you referring to his Freudianism, his peculiar brand of
>> Darwinism, his punctuated evolution, his anti-intelligence theories,
>> or what?
>
>
--
Dick #1349
People think that libraries are safe places, but they're not,
they have ideas.
email: dic...@uswest.net
Homepage http://www.users.uswest.net/~dickcr/